Below is a response to the opinion column of Peter Reith linked here regarding the Royal Commission into Unions and media reports involving it.
Dear Mr Reith,
Perhaps your judgement on the HSU matter is clouded due to all the photos of your night out with Kathy Jackson that are on the internet.
In your column you claim:
“Union revenge against Kathy Jackson for being the whistle-blower on union corruption is just plain wrong.”
Is that your way of saying that the union should not be allowed to pursue Jackson legally for all of the funds there is a mountain of evidence indicating she may have misappropriated?
If that is in fact your position then frankly I find it rather offensive, as I’m sure union members do also.
Jackson has already admitted to what appear to be illegal practices on the witness stand under oath and hasn’t even face cross-examination as yet.
As you say the Royal Commission will run its course and who did what will eventually be revealed, or at least we hope so. I just hope that you will accept the outcome on Ms Jackson as you already seem rather reluctant.
Your attack on Mark Latham and John Faine for having an opinion on the Royal Commission and its integrity comes across as a bit desperate.
Both Latham and Faine are entitled to voice their opinions the same as Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are. Even you are welcome to voicing an opinion Mr Reith as your column demonstrates, it is all part of a living in a free society.
How cosy….
The questions that have been raised about the integrity of the Royal Commission are completely valid, as transparency does seem to have got lost along the way somewhere.
I was present at the Royal Commission throughout last week and was certainly not the only person to notice the difference in the questioning styles of Jeremy Stoljar when Craig McGregor took the stand.
The contrast was stark, and I can assure you Mr Reith that every single member of the press in the media room picked up on it. It was like Stoljar had been whispering in the ears of previous witnesses and chose to scream in the face of McGregor, the change was that noticable, it was just a shame that the live feed went down so the public missed seeing it, as I assume you did given I didn’t see you in attendance.
Craig McGregor is not some union thug trying to exact revenge on Jackson. He is a radiologist who is not factionally aligned with anyone and who is seeking answers on behalf of his membership of the union for which he is now the Secretary after being elected by a membership that was sick to death of Kathy Jacksons faction.
For him not to seek answers would be to fail in his duties and to let the members down. It should be remembered that McGregor didn’t limp over the line in the union elections, he won a landslide victory and succeeded in every elected position.
Fairfax whom you write for have even suggested that McGregor is a whistle-blower of the type you claim to protect.
Also bringing the integrity of the Royal Commission into doubt is continued intimidation of members of the media and other union officials by Jacksons right hand man Marco Bolano. This was reported to Commission Security yet continued unabated and is now a police matter and has been reported by several media outlets.
However it is the official statement of Bruce Wilson and his supplementary statement that ring alarm bells and should concern each and every member of the public who were hoping for transparency from this Royal Commission.
Bruce Wilson, who is the former partner of Julia Gillard made sworn testimony in his statements that the Commission decided it didn’t wish to have in evidence and deleted it from his signed statements.
Part of this censored statement was brought to light by on John Faines radio programme and involved allegations that a payment of $200,000 was offered to set Gillard up by one of the Commission witnesses Harry Nowicki.
This will not be explored by the Commission for reasons that are unclear at best.
In the media room we were given Wilsons statement with 9 blank pages at the end with a signature, and his supplementary statement was given out with more than half of it censored at the Commission’s request.
I can assure you the significance of this was not lost on the media present. Copies of the censored statements can be seen via the below links.
Bruce Wilson Witness Statement 4th June
Bruce Wilson Supplementary Statement 6th June
Your faith in the integrity and transparency of a Royal Commission that deems it appropriate to treat some witnesses as hostile while others are treated softly, is noted Mr Reith, as is your confidence in the fairness of a Commission that censors out the sworn testimony of a key witness, seemingly because it does not suit the agenda.
In your piece you demand transparency from the Labor Party, but yet you appear to apply a different set of standards for this Royal Commission.
You claim in your piece that you don’t know what happened in the Health Services union in regards to Jackson and I don’t doubt that at all given your apparent selective seeking of truth.
However I would suggest that someone who admits to having no knowledge on the matter let those who do have a solid understanding do their jobs without your misdirected criticism and scorn from the sidelines.
Just a suggestion of course…
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Well done Wixxi, I think you may have upset him
Pete I have posted link to your article on comments under Reiths rant on SMH. It is under approval or otherwise. We shall see if Fairfax are as fair and balanced as they would have us believe.
Thanks for your continued contribution to openness and fair reporting
Great reply to that “friend” of our Unions (snigger), I tried leaving a comment in the SMH this morning but it was rejected, I only suggested reith focus on his own corrupt party or write some more on the LNP “hero” Kathy Jackson, for some reason it wasn’t published….oh well.
Keep up your excellent work.
Disappointed in you Wixxy, you could have asked reith about his $50000 phone sex bill…or the children overboard saga..Other than that, great rebuttal of a political has-been, I find there is nothing worse than washed-up political failures sprouting their biased opinions in the forlorn hope of retaining some relevance, and in that category I would include latham, howard, vanstone,,richardson,et. al.
Sorry, there was a million things I’d have loved to have said, but I thought I’d best stay on topic
Having misled us all about refugees chucking their own children overboard, Peter Reith has now chucked himself overboard to protect a fellow deceiver, Kathy Jackson. This is his version of the kind of action a privileged member of the upper classes in Victorian England would have taken after being found out for doing something dishonourable. The difference is that Reith has committed the act metaphorically with a pen, not literally with a gun.
Your work is brilliant Peter. If we lived in a just society, you would be the top political writer for a much newspaper than any we have now.
One thing you can say about Reith, he has never let facts colour his judgement. Or is he just a straight out liar?
Excellent Peter as usual
That’s right Reith has never let facts colour his judgement.Remember the children overboard episode where despite knowing the allegations that women were throwing their babies overboard were untrue,he continued to peddle this lie.This man is totally discredited and a waste of space.
What happened to RC today, in Perth. Did not seem to be on air, The day before, had long gaps with no action.
I thought it was to go for at least three or more days.
Nothing today so far as I can see either
Just came across this site but have read your work on IA, Peter. Wasn’t Reith also responsible for the ‘mercenary scab labour’ who were trained in secret in Dubai to displace the striking dock workers? Followed by the disgraceful episode of confronting the striking workers with attack dogs. I don’t think Reith has any credibility to publicly comment on supposed wrong doings of anyone.